Brethren, I want to invite you to read and subscribe to my latest experiment in self-expression and information-sharing: The Vivificat Daily Chronicle.
This is pretty cool! I name it, select the contents, and it runs itself.
It should display more information from different feeds in the morning.
Enjoy!
Brethren, I wish to share with you this press release of a recent conference Cardinal Raymond Burke addressed in Kansas City.
SAN DIEGO, July 28, 2011 -- The Conference in Kansas City this past Saturday entitled "Being Faithful even unto Death: Catholic Wisdom on the Treatment of the Disabled and Dying," sponsored by St. Gianna Physician's Guild drew a sold out, standing room only crowd. Attendees traveled from 17 states and included physicians, psychologists, administrators, attorneys, religious and many others.
The powerful line up of speakers was headlined by the beloved Cardinal Raymond Burke who delivered a powerful address framing the Church's position on suffering and care of the disabled and dying. Other speakers included Bobby Schindler and Suzanne Vitadomo, siblings of the late Terri Schiavo who now advocate for these issues for families and patients through the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network, Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, Dr. Austin Welsh a geriatrician and special guest Gianna Emanuela Molla, the daughter of St. Gianna who traveled here from Italy.
"The entire day exceeded all of our expectations.. The atmosphere in the room when discussing and analyzing the difficult bioethical issues surrounding the care of the disabled and elderly and the momentum in society to euthanize them was that of a family gathering," said Thomas McKenna, Founder and President of St. Gianna Physician's Guild and sponsor of the event. "The importance of these issues was underscored by the participation of both dioceses of Kansas City, KS and Kansas City -- St. Joseph. It was a great blessing to have Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Finn with us throughout the entire day."
Participants agreed that a highlight of the day came when Gianna Emmanula Molla delivered her first talk since the death of her father entitled: "My mother, St. Gianna, and the legacy she left behind." This beautiful talk gave insight to the spirituality of St. Gianna's husband and family since her death in 1962. Gianna and her siblings represent the first time ever that children were present at the canonization of their own mother.
Cardinal Burke said: "The conference addressed one of the most critical questions regarding respect for human life in our nation. It was outstanding and very edifying for me and I was very pleased to be a part of it."
A set of the conference talks will soon be available on St. Gianna Physician's Guild web site www.StGiannaPhysicians.org.
Photos available upon request.
For interviews contact: Megan Morris 888-345-3343
Just one brief comment from me: Terri Schiavo’s life and death had a meaning. God is bringing out great good out of great evil. Those who were responsible for the evil will be held accountable before God’s tribunal at his convenience. Read more about this conference at:
![221811_10150161757173562_24102748561_6679472_192895_n[1]](http://lh5.ggpht.com/-L26Cx6xyJH4/TjAbTPo4EuI/AAAAAAAABGc/xL4nRZxRt74/s1600-h/221811_10150161757173562_24102748561_6679472_192895_n%25255B1%25255D%25255B2%25255D.jpg "221811_10150161757173562_24102748561_6679472_192895_n[1]")
"DOING PENANCE FOR ONE'S SINS is a first step towards obtaining forgiveness and winning eternal salvation...No individual Christian can grow in perfection, nor can Christianity gain in vigor, except it be on the basis of penance". Bl. John XXIII, Paenitentiam Agere, 1.
Brethren: I am enjoying a short vacation with my wife, children, and beautiful grandchildren now that my youngest grandson is out of danger and recovering well from his surgery. Next week I’ll return to the Outremer so I want to enjoy every minute I have here. In the meantime, I have a new Google Plus page you may want to visit and link to:
I also wanted to share the URLs of other blogs and social networks I belong to, as well as some of the pages and groups I administer or co-administer in Facebook, FYI. Feel free to link to me!
INSIDE OF FACEBOOK:
Pope John XXIII - Papa Juan XXIII - Papa Giovanni XXIII
https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/9174953434?ap=1
OUTSIDE OF FACEBOOK:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3NAK0QG32XFKL/ref=cm_aya_pdp_home
http://www.freerepublic.com/~tefilo/
http://www.npr.org/templates/community/persona.php?uidt=1282505747
Source: Jihad Watch
As Patricia Crone once put it, “new religions do not spring fully fledged from the heads of prophets, old civilizations are not conjured away.” Islam did not somehow emerge fully developed, as the Islamic traditional accounts would have us believe, but slowly, over a long period of time, as the Arab conquerors came into contact with the far older cultures and civilizations, which pushed the Arabs to question and forge their own religious and cultural identity. Ever since the Nineteenth Century, when Western scholars, especially German, but also Italian, French, Hungarian, and British, began to examine Islam and the Koran in the same manner that they had begun examining the Old and New Testament, the debate has been as to determine whether it was Judaism or Christianity that contributed most to the creation of Islam. As Richard Bell, in his The Origin of Islam in Its Christian Environment [Edinburgh, 1925], expressed it, “That both Judaism and Christianity played a part in forming the doctrine of Islam and in preparing the spiritual soil of Arabia for its reception has long been recognised. How much influence is to be attributed to the one, and how much to the other, is difficult to decide. For much is common to both, and we have to remember that there were many forms of Christianity intermediate between the orthodox Church of the seventh century and the Judaism out of which it sprang, and it was in the East, on the confines of Arabia, that we know these Judaistic forms of Christianity to have longest maintained themselves. Some things in the Qur'an and in Islam which appear specially Jewish, may really have come through nominally Christian channels. But even with that allowance there is no doubt about the large influence exercised by Judaism.”
A. CHRISTIANITY: APOCRYPHA
Adolf von Harnack [1851-1930], in his Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten [The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries] (1902, revised 1906, 1915, and finally 1924), wrote, “The large regions south of Palestine, Damascus, and Mesopotamia which bear the name of 'Arabia' were never civilized -- they were not even subdued -- by the Romans, with the exception of the country lying east of the Jordan and several positions south of the Dead Sea. Consequently we can look for Christians during our epoch only in the districts just mentioned, where Arabian, Greek, and Roman cities were inhabited by people of superior civilization. Immediately after his conversion Paul betook himself to 'Arabia' (Gal. 1.17), i.e., hardly to the desert, but rather to the province south of Damascus. Arabians are also mentioned in Acts 2.11…. There are no Arabic versions of the Bible previous to Islam, a fact which proves irrefragably that in its primitive period Christianity had secured no footing at all among the Arabs. Indeed it never secured such a footing, for the Arabic versions were not made for Arabs at all, but for Copts and Syrians who had become Arabians.”
Nonetheless, the Christian churches on the confines of Arabia exercised a certain amount of influence, and this influence came primarily from Syria in the north-west, Mesopotamia in the north-east, and Abyssinia in the west. The latter center may have exercised its influence across the Red Sea, but more probably by way of Yemen in the south, which was under Abyssinian rule for a while. However, as ever, scholars are divided as to the extent of the Christian presence in the Hijaz, that is, that part of Saudi Arabia that accommodates the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. For example, J.S. Trimingham, in his Christianity among the Arabs in pre-Islamic Times [London, 1979], remarks that: “Christianity was non-existent among the Arabs of western Arabia south of the Judham tribes.” In a chapter headed “Christians in the Hijaz,” after describing the history of Mecca according to the Muslim sources, plus its geographical location, he concludes that “these factors are sufficient to explain why Christianity in any of its available forms could have no influence upon its inhabitants.” Whereas another scholar, Irfan Shahid, in his Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fifth Century, observes that “Places with distinctly Christian association, such as Maqbarat al Nasara, the cemetery of the Christians, are attested in Mecca in later Islamic sources and these could not possibly have been fabricated.”
I believe that it is inadvisable, fruitless and unnecessary to rely upon late sources to establish the presence of Jews or Christians in Arabia, since, if the arguments of the revisionists inspired by the work of John Wansbrough are correct, Islam developed not in Arabia but much further north in the “the Sectarian Milieu” of Palestine and Syria. Thus we need only to examine the Koran itself to see that it is full of stories and motifs derived from the Old and New Testament. But such a scrutiny also yields further surprising results: many of the stories in the Koran, especially of Mary, mother of Jesus, have been taken from the apocryphal Gospels, which in turn derived them from older Buddhist texts.
Part 2 here; part 3 here; part 4 here; part 5 here, part 6 here, part 7 here, part 8 here, part 9 here, part 10 here.
Brethren, I had to leave the Outremer for two weeks to be on hand for my youngest grandson’s emergency operation. Thanks to the Lord who has granted men wonderful healing skills, he’s much better now. As you can see from the picture to the right, he’s almost back to his happy self. For those of you who knew about this, thank you for your thoughts and prayers. For those of you who just’ve found out, I ask your prayers for his full recovery.
Let me get used to being back home from the warzone for this brief respite. I’ll blog again soon.
Fr. Nicolas Schwizer
Father Kentenich, founder of the Schoenstatt Movement, denotes three types of persons who can usually be found in an ecclesial community.
1. On the one hand, those who pull strongly downward. He also calls them the “seducers.” They are the ones who give in too much to their nature. They seek a comfortable and tranquil life. They have a naturalist mentality. They may be good, but they make no big effort. They have forgotten the words of the Lord: “…..The Kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force” (MT 11, 12). They are like chickens who always look downward, they only see their small world.
2. On the other hand are those who push forward and upward. Father Kentenich calls them drivers, leaders. They are the ones who extend their hands towards the stars. They are the eagles in the Kingdom of God, the ones who aspire to the heights.
3. And finally, the third group of those who are in the middle of the other two. They are the undecided ones, the dependent ones, those who are inclined toward the eagles or toward the chickens, according to who is dominating or influencing more in the community. They are like sheep which allow themselves to be dragged along by the shepherds who are more convenient for them or convincing…..be it upward or downward.
Now then, what are the leadership characteristics which members of an ecclesial community should have? Evidently not everyone can assume an office or a task of leadership in whichever place. But “each one should be able to be a driver, a leader in his/her state of life and in his/her circle.”
In other words, that means “the capacity to influence in his/her own confines.” He/she should be ferment in his/her world, know how to pull the others along, leave his/her personal seal. Let us ask ourselves if we have been able to transform something in our family, profession, or neighborhood in which we live.
Another leadership quality is “firmness of character and principles.” If tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, we have to our right or to our left someone of whom we are embarrassed, the community also ends up losing its own self-esteem. The leader must then be a person solidly rooted in the ultimate principles and truths, in the supernatural world. For that, he/she must study, know the doctrine of the Church and of his/her community.
Additionally, the leader personality must stand out for his/her “capacity to commit himself/herself, to accept and fulfill commitments.” For the majority it is not too difficult to accept commitments. What really is difficult is to fulfill the assumed commitments.
This lack of responsibility we often find among ourselves. It always reminds me of the parable of the two sons (MT 21, 28f) “There was once a man who had two sons. He went to the older one and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ ‘I don’t want to, ‘ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. ‘Yes, sir,’ he answered, but he did not go.” In the first son, perhaps a few melancholics see their reflections. But more must recognize themselves in the second son.
Therefore, this quality often means: knowing how to reject commitments which one does not feel capable of fulfilling well. We do not know how to say “no” when we do not want to or when we do not know how to do something. The heart impedes us. Or, someone else’s persuasion is so convincing. And then we say “yes,” but perhaps with the intention of not fulfilling it. It is a lack of responsibility, a lack of serious commitment. Our words should always express our inner conviction. If not, it is better that we remain silent!.....because someday we will be made accountable, also for what we say.
Questions for reflection
1. To which of the three types do we belong?
2. Am I an influence where I work?
3. Do I fulfill my assumed commitments?
Brethren, definitions are always good and the dictionary writers almost always do their best to formulate them. Let’s start with them: what’s this thing suddenly so in vogue called “tolerance”? I mean the one we ought to practice in society, not the one practiced in pharmacy, botanic, medicine, or engineering.
Definitions and Daffynitions
The Google dictionary defines “tolerance” as:
1. The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with: "religious tolerance".
I like it. It speaks about “opinions or behavior”, not of people. How about this one, from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:
2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
Really? How did the lexicographers know this? Now a person’s feelings of sympathy or indulgence are injected into the definition of tolerance. By this definition, no one can be tolerant without being sympathetic or indulgent to the beliefs or practices one objects to. The folks at Merriam-Webster got it right when they proposed the following synonyms for “tolerance”: forbearance, long-suffering, sufferance, patience.
"Tolerance" is better defined by the synonyms present Merriam-Webster’s proposed than by the definition itself. When I "tolerate," I "forebear, long-suffer, suffer" or have "patience." I feel neither "sympathy" nor "indulgence" to whatever it is that peeves me.
If you think that’s bad, check these from Dictionary.com:
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
Now we see an agenda at work here. According to the first definition, one is tolerant only if one is fair, objective, and permissive toward those (now we are talking about people) whose “etc.” differs from one’s own.” To be tolerant is to be “free from bigotry” which by implication means being unfair, subjective, and strict. But, who says one is “free from bigotry” and toward what? What’s the “etcetera”?
Number two is just a shorter repetition of the first one but read number three again:
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
Under definition #3, are observant Catholics “tolerant”? Well, I do have an “interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to my own. I do that all the time but I am not a liberal, and the only viewpoints I hold “undogmatically” are liberal viewpoints, at least those that relate to relativism, religious indifference, secularism, human sexuality, and abortion. I question many of these liberal dogmas. I do tolerate some of these more than the others because of a “fair and objective” attitude I hold against them, but my tolerance doesn’t lead me to a “permissive attitude” toward them. I advocate their cessation!
My fair and objective concern leads me to label abortion as murder, but because of my concerns, in the liberal lexicon I am considered a “bigot” toward women in this case, hence, “intolerant.” The same sober, educated questioning of “dogmas” leads me to hold same-sex “marriage” as a violation, not only of the institution of marriage – itself in threads anyway – but as a violation of the very human dignity of those involved in such a contract. Yet, this “undogmatic viewpoint” toward liberal, “humanist” dogmas is the wrong kind of undogmatism our social engineers demand in order to define me as “tolerant.”
The Past is Now
One of my favorite novels is 1984 by George Orwell, which I read in 1984 as a matter of fact. Back then we discussed the many parallels between the story plot and totalitarian societies. Back then we still had the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block, and also Cuba in our own neighborhood, therefore it was easy to point out the similarities. When we discussed if there were any parallels between the free societies and the world portrayed in the book, we mentioned intrusion of pervasive commercial advertising in our lives, and the way advertisers tried to convince us on how we could be happy if we only bought their product. The discussion turned about “backward masking” in song production and subliminal suggestions in music and advertising. Little did we knew…
One of my favorite plot devices in 1984 was the concept of Newspeak. Orwell wrote a detailed description of the concept in an afterword. Newspeak has come to mean any attempt to restrict disapproved language by a government or other powerful entity.
This is what’s happening with this slow evolution of the word tolerance, a noun that will be restricted to liberal elites who are fair, objective, permissive, and undogmatic. Everyone else, particularly Christians, will be seen, by definition, as intolerants and bigots.
Newspeak is here, this is where we are heading with our language, and not only English, but that’s also the trend with every western European language. 1984 is here. The past is now.
On my next post, I will attempt to formulate a Catholic definition of tolerance.
Brethren, during the last couple of days I put together a compilation of prayers to pray while sick or suffering, whether for oneself or for others. The compilation are found in a single PDF file which I now share with you. What follows is the link and the Introduction to the compilation.
Link to Prayers in Sickness and Suffering
Brothers and sisters: many times when we are sick or when others are sick and we want to pray either for us or for them we find ourselves are a loss for words. Sometimes we question if it is proper to ask healing from God and if it is, we wonder what are the proper attitudes and the proper words. This little booklet aim to alleviate those anxieties.
The following is a collection of prayers I compiled from multiple sources across the Internet. In my opinion, they will readily give you a direct insight on the right words and attitudes needed to ask for healing or for resignation in suffering.
Great introspection and spiritual discernment are required to determine between one's – or someone's – call in the face of illness. Am I called to be healed or am I called to coredemptive suffering with Christ? What is the call of the person for whom we are praying? Many saints were presented with the choice between the two only to choose suffering for the sake of other souls. Consulting with one's spiritual director – preferably a holy, prudent priest or a more mature Christian not in holy orders, whether religious or lay, male or female – is necessary to ascertain God's will for us. The "Word of Faith"
prayers in Chapter IV must be executed with great prudence and understanding of the value of suffering in the life of the Christian.
So that no one misunderstands this truth, I added the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Instruction on Prayers for Healing on the first appendix to this compilation. It behooves those willing to pray the "Word of Faith" prayers to read this instruction first, as well as all of those whose ministry include praying for the sick and infirm or if you are sick or infirm yourself. We must always remember that Catholics Christians are not "faith healers" but men and women suffused with the Love of Christ with a keen understanding of the value of co-suffering with Christ for the salvation of others.
Finally, it is imperative for us not to forget that the ordinary manner in which the Church prays for the spiritual and bodily healing of a person is through the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. This great sacrament is often misunderstood as the sacrament of the dying when it is in fact, the sacrament of the sick and the infirm. I have included a second appendix, canonically approved by the Bishop of San Diego, explaining the nature, matter, form, and finality of the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. Our prayers for ourselves and for others must ignite in us the desire to receive this Sacrament and/or to dispose those in our care to receive it. Prayers for healing may also occur in the intercessions made in the daily prayers of the Liturgy of the Hours and of Holy Mass.
To visit the sick is one of the corporal works of mercy; to comfort the sorrowful is one of the spiritual works of mercy. May this humble compilation help you do both. Let us go forth in Jesus Name, Amen.
Brethren, renowned Catholic critic of Islam Robert Spencer recently posted this entry on Jihad Watch that I wish to share with you with my own twist. I understand that many love to hate Robert Spencer but I don't. I am not by character as loud as he is but in today's rarefied media environment where the babble of the cultural elites are highly favored, Spencer's loudness - and that of Catholic League's Mr. Donohoue - are exactly what's needed. Anyway, this is what Mr. Spencer said: 1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.Read the post here.
2. Renounce definitively, sincerely, honestly, and in deeds, not just in comforting words, not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people, teaching accordingly in mosques and Islamic schools, and behaving in accord with these new teachings.
3. Teach, again sincerely and honestly, in transparent and verifiable ways in mosques and Islamic schools, the imperative of Muslims coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis, and act accordingly.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach sincerely against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively and honestly work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.
If Muslims do those five things, voila! "Islamophobia" will evanesce!
Brethren, perhaps you’ve heard of them. The Four Chaplains, also sometimes referred to as the "Immortal Chaplains," were four United States Army chaplains who gave their lives to save other civilian and military personnel during the sinking of the troop ship USAT Dorchester during World War II. They helped other soldiers board lifeboats and gave up their own life jackets when the supply ran out. The chaplains joined arms, said prayers, and sang hymns as they went down with the ship.
The four men were relatively new chaplains, who all held the rank of lieutenant. They included Methodist Reverend George L. Fox, Rabbi Alexander D. Goode, Roman Catholic Priest Father John P. Washington and Reformed Church in America Reverend Clark V. Poling. Their backgrounds, personalities, and faiths were different, although Goode, Poling and Washington had all served as leaders in the Boy Scouts of America.[1] They would meet at the Army Chaplains School at Harvard University, where they would prepare for assignments in the European theater, sailing onboard USAT Dorchester to report to their new assignments
The Dorchester left New York on January 23, 1943, en route to Greenland, carrying the four chaplains and approximately 900 others, as part of a convoy of three ships (SG-19 convoy). Most of the military personnel were not told the ship's ultimate destination. The convoy was escorted by Coast Guard Cutters Tampa, Escanaba and Comanche.[10]
The ship's Captain, Hans J. Danielsen, had been alerted that Coast Guard sonar had detected a submarine. Because German U-boats were monitoring sea lanes and had attacked and sunk ships earlier during the war, Captain Danielsen had the ship's crew on a state of high alert even before he received that information, ordering the men to sleep in their clothing and keep their life jackets on. "Many soldiers sleeping deep in the ship's hold disregarded the order because of the engine's heat. Others ignored it because the life jackets were uncomfortable."[8]
During the early morning hours of February 3, 1943, at 12:55am, the vessel was torpedoed by the German submarine U-223 off Newfoundland in the North Atlantic.[11]
The torpedo knocked out the Dorchester's electrical system, leaving the ship dark. Panic set in among the men on board, many of them trapped below decks. The chaplains sought to calm the men and organize an orderly evacuation of the ship, and helped guide wounded men to safety. As life jackets were passed out to the men, the supply ran out before each man had one. The chaplains removed their own life jackets and gave them to others. They helped as many men as they could into lifeboats, and then linked arms and, saying prayers and singing hymns, went down with the ship.[11]
As I swam away from the ship, I looked back. The flares had lighted everything. The bow came up high and she slid under. The last thing I saw, the Four Chaplains were up there praying for the safety of the men. They had done everything they could. I did not see them again. They themselves did not have a chance without their life jackets.
—Grady Clark, survivor[12]
According to some reports, survivors could hear different languages mixed in the prayers of the chaplains, including Hebrew Jewish prayers and Latin Catholic prayers.[13]
In all, 230 of the 904 men aboard the ship were rescued. Life jackets offered little protection from hypothermia, which killed most men in the water. The water temperature was 34 °F (1 °C) and the air temperature was 36 °F (2 °C). By the time additional rescue ships arrived, "...hundreds of dead bodies were seen floating on the water, kept up by their life jackets."[14]
(Source: Wikipedia)
Commentary. Let’s think about this a little bit. Who were these crewmen neighbors? At the time to give their lives for their friends, weren’t these disparate Christians and a Jew brothers to each other and sons of the same God? Much to ponder here as we remember their heroism and their sacrifice.
Where to we get these men? Let us commit ourselves to build a nation worthy of their legacy.
Padre Nicolás Schwizer
The bride and groom come to Church to wed before God and the Christian community. It is because the love which blossomed was offered as a promise of happiness. They had such a deep experience of love that they decided: this has to last forever.
Each one must have said to himself/herself: My happiness depends on this extraordinary person whom I have met. I realize that without her I cannot grow, I cannot be happy, I need her. Therefore, I want to unite my life with hers. And it is in this way that they begin the marriage journey, filled with hope.
Now then, what does the sacrament of matrimony mean for the love story they are experiencing?
I think that the great majority of Christian marriages are not very clear on that meaning. There is a lot about customs, routine, and even family pressure.
Many believe that marriage is no more than a simple blessing of that same love – just as one blesses a car or a medal – so that God may protect them and that nothing bad happens to them. I know that is not the concept which you have of this sacrament.
The true meaning of Christian marriage is: through this sacrament, the Lord does something with the love. He touches this love and changes it, He changes it into something different than what it was when they entered the Church.
Something similar happened at the Last Supper when the Lord changed the bread into his Body. The bread continued looking like bread, but it was no longer bread, it was a sign that the Body of Christ is there.
The Lord does the same with love on the wedding day: He takes the love of the bride and groom and he converts it into a sign and presence of his own divine love.
The love continues being the love between the two, but at the same time it is something more – like the consecrated host is more than bread. The love between the two receives the mission of being a sign and reflection of the love between God and mankind.
In the sacrament of matrimony, the two are going to accept that mission. They are going to tell the Lord: Yes, I accept that my love may become a reflection of your love.
The bride and groom come to Church to wed before God and the Christian community. It is because the love which blossomed was offered as a promise of happiness. They had such a deep experience of love that they decided: this has to last forever.
Each one must have said to himself/herself: My happiness depends on this extraordinary person whom I have met. I realize that without her I cannot grow, I cannot be happy, I need her. Therefore, I want to unite my life with hers. And it is in this way that they begin the marriage journey, filled with hope.
Now then, what does the sacrament of matrimony mean for the love story they are experiencing?
I think that the great majority of Christian marriages are not very clear on that meaning. There is a lot about customs, routine, and even family pressure.
Many believe that marriage is no more than a simple blessing of that same love – just as one blesses a car or a medal – so that God may protect them and that nothing bad happens to them. I know that is not the concept which you have of this sacrament.
The true meaning of Christian marriage is: through this sacrament, the Lord does something with the love. He touches this love and changes it, He changes it into something different than what it was when they entered the Church.
Something similar happened at the Last Supper when the Lord changed the bread into his Body. The bread continued looking like bread, but it was no longer bread, it was a sign that the Body of Christ is there.
The Lord does the same with love on the wedding day: He takes the love of the bride and groom and he converts it into a sign and presence of his own divine love.
The love continues being the love between the two, but at the same time it is something more – like the consecrated host is more than bread. The love between the two receives the mission of being a sign and reflection of the love between God and mankind.
In the sacrament of matrimony, the two are going to accept that mission. They are going to tell the Lord: Yes, I accept that my love may become a reflection of your love.
…others see what once was, and what ought to be again.
"Our fathers' God to Thee,
Author of Liberty,
To thee we sing,
Long may our land be bright
With Freedom's holy light,
...Protect us by thy might
Great God, our King."
Happy Birthday, America!
May the Lord protect you and guide you.
May you become again what you were supposed to be:
a beacon of hope to all peoples,
a defender of the weak
protector of those who cannot defend themselves
Upholder of nature’s law and a humble servant of nature’s God.
Calls attention to Tolkien's great words reminding us about forgotten wisdom on evil. Press play to listen to this great lecture!
1 O God, do not remain silent;
do not turn a deaf ear,
do not stand aloof, O God.
2 See how your enemies growl,
how your foes rear their heads.
3 With cunning they conspire against your people;
they plot against those you cherish.
4 “Come,” they say, “let us destroy them as a nation,
so that Israel’s name is remembered no more.”
5 With one mind they plot together;
they form an alliance against you—
6 the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites,
of Moab and the Hagrites,
7 Byblos, Ammon and Amalek,
Philistia, with the people of Tyre.
8 Even Assyria has joined them
to reinforce Lot’s descendants.[b]
9 Do to them as you did to Midian,
as you did to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon,
10 who perished at Endor
and became like dung on the ground.
11 Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb,
all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna,
12 who said, “Let us take possession
of the pasturelands of God.”
13 Make them like tumbleweed, my God,
like chaff before the wind.
14 As fire consumes the forest
or a flame sets the mountains ablaze,
15 so pursue them with your tempest
and terrify them with your storm.
16 Cover their faces with shame, LORD,
so that they will seek your name.
17 May they ever be ashamed and dismayed;
may they perish in disgrace.
18 Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD—
that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.
It is a good post. Read it all here.Proposal: So the bottom line is that what the secular world means by the word “marriage” is not even close to what the Church means. The secular world excluded every aspect of what the Church means by marriage. Is it time for us to accept this and start using a different word? Perhaps it is and I would like to propose what I did back in March of 2010, that we return to an older term and hear what you think. I propose that we should exclusively refer to marriage in the Church as “Holy Matrimony.”
According to this proposal the word marriage would be set aside and replaced by Holy Matrimony. It should be noticed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to this Sacrament formally as “The Sacrament of Matrimony.”
A secondary but related proposal is that we begin to consider getting out of the business of having our clergy act as civil magistrates in weddings. Right now we clergy in most of America sign the civil license and act, as such, as partners with the State. But with increasing States interpreting marriage so differently, can we really say we are partners? Should we even give the impression of credibility to the State’s increasingly meaningless piece of paper? It may remain the case that the Catholic faithful, for legal and tax reasons may need to get a civil license, but why should clergy have anything to do with it?
Posts
All Comments
